Brady v Norman Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Brady v Norman - Essay Example His stint was cut short, however, when he got into a scuffle with the President of ASLEF, Mr. Samways on 20th May 2004 at a barbecue. After five days, he was suspended. In July of that same year, he was accused of forgery for signing a cheque in the name of the Assistant General Secretary, with the latter’s consent and knowledge. In August 2004, he was dismissed as General Secretary using the forgery and the barbecue scuffle as grounds. A claim for unfair dismissal was brought against the ASLEF by Mr. Brady, and the Employment Tribunal ruled in his favour. Upon appeal before the Employment Appeal Tribunal, the appeal was likewise dismissed. However, on June 5, 2006, the respondent Mr. Norman, who was the General Secretary voted to replace Mr. Brady, uttered these words before the ASLEF†S Annual Assembly of Delegates on 5th June 2006. The following words were made the basis of the defamation charge brought by Mr. Brady against Mr. Norman: â€Å"†¦ the facts are, Con ference, that the General Secretary was involved in a fight; the General Secretary was forging cheques and it is a matter of opinion – you can draw whatever opinion you like – as to whether his actions in the media brought the Union into disrepute. What you cannot possibly walk away from is that he was involved in a fight with the then President, and he forged cheques. ... Mr. Brady was awarded indemnity because the following words were deemed libellous: â€Å"ASLEF conference delegates declined to debate a proposition calling for former General Secretary Mr Brady to address Conference, coupled to efforts to consider his reinstatement. They felt it was pointless to discuss â€Å"a past era†. One compelling reason was that the Certification Officer had ruled the previous week that Mr Brady had legitimately been excluded from ASLEF membership for bringing the Union into disrepute. †¦Ã¢â‚¬ 3 However, the words spoken during the Assembly (the first quoted paragraph) did not come to the knowledge of Mr. Brady until September 2008. In 2009, or when the first libel action was concluded, Mr. Brady brought suit for defamation. Under the Defamation Act 2006, the statute of limitations to bring suit runs for only one year, and this likewise appears in section 4A of the Limitation Act 1980 as amended. Mr. Brady filed a Part 8 claim seeking disapplica tion of the one-year limit. Section 32A of the 1980 Act â€Å"enables the court to disapply section 4A if it appears to the court that it would be equitable to allow the action to proceed having regard to the degree to which the time limit prejudices the claimant and to the degree to which disapplying the time limit would prejudice the defendant.4† The Master ruled against disapplying the time limit and consequently moved to dismiss the claim, ruling that doing so would be prejudicial to the defendant. The case is then brought up on Appeal. Point of Law: The crux of the issue on appeal is whether or not there is merit in waiving the time limit in the case under Section 32A, considering that the jurisprudence